BHASKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Applicant Bhaskar Singh has filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr. P. C. praying for his release on bail in crime number 476 of 2005 under Sections 302/307 IPC and 3 (2)V SC/st Act and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, relating to police station Ghosi District Mau.

(2.) THE prosecution allegations against the applicant as culled out from the FIR are that Akhilesh Pandey the elder brother of the informant Brajesh Kumar Pandey accompanied by Ram Bachan, Ganga Ram, Sri Kant Pandey and Ram Dev had gone to Ghosi Block at 3 p. m. on 16-10-2005 where the two siblings accused Bhaskar Singh and Bhushan Singh were present in ambush. When Akhilesh Singh was approaching towards Panchayat Hall Ghosi Block then the two accused Bhaskar Singh (Present Applicant) and Bhushan Singh started firing at him as a result of which Akhilesh Singh sustained injuries. Informant, Ram Bachan and Ganga Ram tried to save the injured but they too received fire-arm injuries. Informant Brajesh Pandey took to his heels to save his life. THE malefactors after committing the crime escaped from the scene of the incident. This shooting was witnessed by Sri Kant Pandey, Ram Dev, Shiv Shankar, Shesh Nath Giri and many others who had collected there. THE incident result in a chaose in the vicinity. Informant Brajesh Pandey rushed the injured persons to the district hospital Mau where his brother Akhilesh Pandey was declared dead and subsequently Ram Bachan Ram also lost his life. Ganga Ram was admitted for his treatment but he too succumbed to the injuries later on. Informant scribed the FIR regarding this incident and after covering a distance of one and half furlong lodged it at police station Ghosi District Azamgargh at 4. 30 p. m. that day itself as crime number 476 of 2005 under Sections 302/307 IPC and 3 (2)V SC/st Act and 7 C. L. Act (Annexure No. 1 ). THE post-mortems on the dead-bodies of the three deceased were performed on 17-10-2005 and their Post-mortem reports (Annexures 2,3 and 4) shows that the deceased were found to have died because of ante-mortem fire-arm injuries. On such factual allegations the applicant has applied for his bail after the same was rejected by the Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 2 Mau vide his order dated 30-5-2006. (Annexure No. 18 ).

(3.) LEARNED AGA contrarily submitted that it a day light incident in which three persons had lost their lives and there is eye-witness account of the said incident. He contended that there was no reason for the informant to falsely implicate the applicant if he was not the real assailant as before this incident neither of them had done any thing against each other. He further contended that the two accused are real brothers and they were opposing the election of one Bhaggu Ram and the applicant was coercing the said Bhaggu Ram to withdraw from the election field. He further argued that there are four eye- witnesses of the incident. They are informant, Sri Kant Pandey, Rama Nand and Shiv Shakar. He further submitted that the deceased Akhilesh Pandey was the Block Pramukh of the same Block and was a supporter of Bhaggu Ram and that is why he had been done to death. He also pointed out that the other two deceased persons Ram Bachan and Ganga Ram were senior Pramukh and Village Pradhan and therefore they were also laid to rest because of the said motive of being supporter of Bhaggu Ram. He contended that the change in the sequence in the manner of assault does not dent the prosecution case even a bit as according to those eye-witnesses who are alleged to have changed the manner of assault it was the applicant who had shot dead Akhilesh Pandey, brother of informant and therefore in essence there is no effect on the prosecution version of the incident. He contended that the post-mortem reports of the three deceased persons are consistent with the eye-witnesses account and therefore the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.